why I believe in the Eucharist

Epiphanygirl said:

Then prove that what you are staing has been taught by the Apostles

Click to expand...

When you have done the same. I have not burned anyone at the stake for disagreeing with me, so it would seem rather more appropriate to have justification of the opposite interpretation first, if indeed it can said to be necessary to have my interpretation at all.

calluna said:

When you have done the same. I have not burned anyone at the stake for disagreeing with me, so it would seem rather more appropriate to have justification of the opposite interpretation first, it indeed it can said to be necessary to have my interpretation at all.

Click to expand...

I'm so very sorry that you cannot even admit to knowing what the Early Church taught from the get go....once you can admit the truth in this, it will be a lot easier

Your claims are baseless. One only has to look at Orthodox(Eastern and Oriental), Catholic, Lutheran, High Anglican churches to know that......those that broke from the Church still held to the fundamental truth of what the Eucharist is......they don't go around claiming it is only symbolic, why is that?

Epiphanygirl said:

I'm so very sorry that you cannot even admit to knowing what the Early Church taught from the get go....once you can admit the truth in this, it will be a lot easier

Your claims are baseless. One only has to look at Orthodox(Eastern and Oriental), Catholic, Lutheran, High Anglican churches to know that......those that broke from the Church still held to the fundamental truth of what the Eucharist is......they don't go around claiming it is only symbolic, why is that?

Click to expand...

Because if it is symbolic, their hierarchies are out of a job.

Wow, it's really sad you feel that way about the clergy who have upheld and preserved the belief in the Eucharist and who it is.
I sincerely hope that you will do some research on the matter.....at least look into what Lutherans and Anglicans have known and taught it to be....that would be a start.

Epiphanygirl said:

Wow, it's really sad you feel that way about the clergy who have upheld and preserved the belief in the Eucharist and who it is.

Click to expand...

That's circularity, poster. The idea of these threads is that we post arguments to prove our ideas. You can shed your tears when you have proved yours, and when I have stubbornly refused to accept your proof. And I don't think that you will ever, in a billion years, give me the the opportunity to do that.

In the meantime, we can justifiably suppose that 'Real Presence' is a spurious notion dreamed up by the Roman Empire to maintain control of the plebeians, one taken up by many other secular authorities to this very day.

I sincerely hope that you will do some research on the matter.....at least look into what Lutherans and Anglicans have known and taught it to be....that would be a start.

Click to expand...

'Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.


The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.' Article XXVIII, CoE.

[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Hear, hear.[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

calluna said:

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.


The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.

Click to expand...

Yes, but I have the idea that you misunderstand what Epiphany Girl has tried several times to get you to appreciate. That is that the Lutherans and Anglicans don't believe in Transubstantiation--and it's Transubstantiation that your comments oppose, not Real Presence per se. If you have no sympathy for the Roman Church and find Transubstantiation unacceptable and worse, consider that these other traditional churches also disavow Transubstantiation and yet still believe in Real Presence. By far, the majority of Christians do, and only some of them are Roman Catholics.

Albion said:

[/size][/font]

Yes, but I have the idea that you misunderstand what Epiphany Girl has tried several times to get you to appreciate. That is that the Lutherans and Anglicans don't believe in Transubstantiation--and it's Transubstantiation that your comments oppose, not Real Presence per se. If you have no sympathy for the Roman Church and find Transubstantiation unacceptable and worse, consider that these other traditional churches also disavow Transubstantiation and yet still believe in Real Presence. By far, the majority of Christians do, and only some of them are Roman Catholics.

Click to expand...

Thank you Albion, that sums it up. I apreciate you stepping in to clarify for me

http://anglicansonline.org/basics/catechism.html#The%20Holy%20Eucharist

The Holy Eucharist
Q. What is the Holy Eucharist?
A. The Holy Eucharist is the sacrament commanded by Christ for the continual remembrance of his life, death, and resurrection, until his coming again.
Q. Why is the Eucharist called a sacrifice?
A. Because the Eucharist, the Church's sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, is the way by which the sacrifice of Christ is made present, and in which he unites us to his one offering of himself.
Q. By what other names is this service known?
A. The Holy Eucharist is called the Lord's Supper, and Holy Communion; it is also known as the Divine Liturgy, the Mass, and the Great Offering.
Q. What is the outward and visible sign in the Eucharist?
A. The outward and visible sign in the Eucharist is bread and wine, given and received according to Christ's command.
Q. What is the inward and spiritual grace given in the Eucharist?
A. The inward and spiritual grace in the Holy Communion is the Body and Blood of Christ give to his people, and received by faith.
Q. What are the benefits which we receive in the Lord's Supper?
A. The benefits we receive are the forgiveness of our sins, the strengthening of our union with Christ and one another, and the foretaste of the heavenly banquet which is our nourishment in eternal life.
Q. What is required of us when we come to the Eucharist?
A. It is required that we should examine our lives, repent of our sins, and be in love and charity with all people.

http://www.acahome.org/whatisac.htm
The Holy Eucharist
The center of our worship is the Holy Eucharist. Other traditional names for this service are: the Holy Communion, the Mass, the Lord's Supper, and the Divine Liturgy. It is the service specifically commanded by Jesus in the New Testament. The Eucharist joins our offering of worship to Christ's offering of Himself upon the altar of the cross. As He promised (Matthew 26; Mark 14; Luke 22; John 6; I Corinthians 11) Jesus is truly, spiritually present under the outward forms of the consecrated Bread and Wine, to infuse our lives with the spiritual strength of His life.
Receiving Holy Communion
By receiving Holy Communion, we give our Solemn Assent, our "Amen," to the entire Anglican Eucharistic Service. We express our belief that the Eucharist is a spiritual sacrifice which must be administered by a bishop or a priest whose ministry derives in succession from the Apostles themselves. We express also our faith in Christ's Real Presence in the Eucharist. Because of the seriousness of these affirmations, this Church does not presume to invite those who in good faith cannot yet accept these beliefs to compromise their conscience by receiving Holy Communion at our Altar. It is for these reasons that we are not an "open Communion" Church. Those who do so believe, and who have been confirmed by a Bishop in Apostolic Succession, and who are spiritually prepared, are welcome to receive Holy Communion.
Preparation for Holy Communion generally takes the form of private prayers. In many Anglican parishes, those physically able to do so refrain from eating ordinary food prior to morning Communion, or for three hours prior to an evening Communion.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/marchweb-only/3-26-14.0.html

Church of England Objects to Vatican Ban on Sharing Communion
The two most senior bishops of the Church of England have branded as "hurtful and unhelpful" the Vatican ban which prevents Roman Catholics from taking communion in non-Catholic churches.
George Carey, the Archbishop of Canterbury and leader of the world-wide Anglican Communion, and his colleague, David Hope, the Archbishop of York, expressed their view in the foreword to The Eucharist: Sacrament of Unity, a statement of Anglican belief by the Church of England's House of Bishops.
The document states that Anglicans find the ban on Roman Catholics receiving Anglican Communion, even in exceptional circumstances "an ecumenical, theological and pastoral affront." Anglicans and Protestants are also prevented, by Vatican rules, from officially receiving communion in Roman Catholic churches. Despite this ban, however, many Anglicans take communion in Roman Catholic churches, particularly when visiting mainly Catholic countries such as France and Italy, and even at the Vatican itself.
The document calls for a more flexible approach by the Vatican. Sharing of the Eucharist between Anglicans and Roman Catholics should not be reserved for the "end point of unity between separated churches." It also states that as the two churches share the same beliefs about the presence of Christ in Holy Communion, Anglicans should not be excluded from receiving the Roman Eucharist.
At a press conference to launch the report on March 21, John Hind, the Anglican Bishop of Europe, made clear his view that Roman Catholics were welcome to receive Anglican communion if their consciences permitted it. The Vatican, however, is not willing to allow sharing of communion with Anglican churches, mainly because it does not recognize Anglican ordinations, and is unlikely to do so. The ordination of women priests in most Anglican provinces has also complicated the question of intercommunion.
(read link to finish article)

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=6629

Q. How does the Lord's Supper in the Lutheran church differ from that in the Roman Catholic and Baptist denominations?

A. At the risk of oversimplication, let me say briefly the following. Roman Catholics share with Lutherans a belief in the real presence of Christ's true body and blood in the elements of the Sacrament. However, disagreements have existed historically on whether or how the mystery of Christ's presence can be explained. Catholics explain the Real Presence through their doctrine of transubstantiation (see entry in the online Christian Cyclopedia).

Lutherans reject such an attempt to explain the Real Presence and insist that we must adhere to the simple words of Christ and be content to believe them as a divine mystery beyond human comprehension or explanation. In addition, longstanding differences exist regarding the Catholic position on the Eucharist as a sacrifice. Lutherans have rejected any understanding of the Lord's Supper as a sacrificial act on our part, holding that it is purely God's gift through which He acts to impart His forgiveness and strength to communicants. With respect to Baptists, usually Baptists understanding the Lord's Supper as a symbolic act, including the elements of bread and wine as symbolizing Christ's presence--in contrast to the Lutheran position that Christ's true body and blood are present in, with, and under the external elements of bread and wine.

Albion said:

[/size][/font]

Yes, but

Click to expand...

There is no 'but'. Read what it says. Every Anglican cleric signs to the truth of those statements, and one archbishop recently warned his province that clergy must stick to them faithfully.

calluna said:

There is no 'but'. Read what it says. Every Anglican cleric signs to the truth of those statements, and one archbishop recently warned his province that clergy must stick to them faithfully.

Click to expand...

I'll be brief.

You're talking to a very experienced Anglican. Are you an Anglican yourself?

The point still stands that you misunderstood what Epiphany Girl was telling you. Even if you oppose Transubstantiation, Lutherans and Anglicans believe in Real Presence themselves and do so quite apart from what the RCC thinks.

You are wrong about Anglican clergy being required to accept the Articles. I wish it were otherwise, but in most Anglican provinces, that has long since ceased to be the case.

And lastly, even if you had been right about them having to accept the Articles, the Articles in question AFFIRM, they DON'T REJECT the doctrine of the Real Presence (as you are determined to say).

They reject Transubstantiation, but not Real Presence.

Almost every Anglican accepts Real Presence as true, and it is explicitly what is stated during the worship service itself. They (except for the Anglo-Catholic fringe) reject wrongful practices concerning the use of the elements, such as parading it around or putting it on display, per the Articles. But that's not a rejection of Real Presence.

You're not alone in thinking it, but I don't get that you understand the difference between Transubstantiation--the RC doctrine--and the Real Presence. If you did understand these terms, I am sure you would at some point have commented on it to either Epiphany Girl or myself when we raised the issue.

But do you understand the issue of Real Presence better now?

Albion said:

But do you understand the issue of Real Presence better now?

Click to expand...

False accusation.

It was a question. We've spent a lot of time trying to help you with this matter. I only wonder if you now see it correctly after all those posts trying to explain it to you.

I don't care which side you take in the end. That's your choice and, as said before, there are many Christians and a range of churches on both sides--representational/symbolic OR Real Presence.

Albion said:

It was a question.

Click to expand...

Also a false accusation.

Well, perhaps sometime you'll go back and read the whole sequence of what was said.

Epiphany Girl expressed herself well, if you don't want to listen to what I explained. And we'll both help you if there are still any areas that are unclear to you.

Meanwhile,
All the best to you.

If anyone (other than 'Albion') wants to go back to before this present irrelevance was begun, please do so. This is an important subject that deserves proper debate.

There isn't any debate. We know that you believe what you do. Also that you are against Transubstantation. Some of us who believe in the Real Presence also are opposed to Transubstantation.

If you'd like to address that, come ahead. THAT could provide a basis for debate, but so far there's been no recognition of our position--no rejection of it, no approval of it, nothing from you about it. And for that matter, there's been no actual refutation of Transubstantiation from you, just that you don't read the scriptural passages in the same way that those who believe it do.

I think we'd actually welcome a debate if you would care to debate us.

calluna said:

If anyone (other than 'Albion') wants to go back to before this present irrelevance was begun, please do so. This is an important subject that deserves proper debate.

Click to expand...

Those posting before 'Albion' jumped in, who have fallen silent for some reason, would be particularly welcome.

calluna said:

Those posting before 'Albion' jumped in, who have fallen silent for some reason, would be particularly welcome.

Click to expand...

Well, give them something to talk about, to discuss. Discussion is a two-way affair. You have to give them some evaluation of the beliefs they've explained to you or else there's nothing more that can be added.